list_integrations

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully names the return payload (integration ids, categories, documentation links), which implies a safe read-only listing, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or whether documentation links can be null when absent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the return contents following. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-optional-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering, and the shape of the returned data, which is enough for correct invocation. Minor gaps around pagination and empty-result behavior keep it from being fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the case-insensitive substring semantics for 'search' and example categories for 'category'. The description only restates the filter dimensions at a high level, adding no syntax or matching details beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (integrations that Cody connects to), plus the optional filter dimensions. The sibling tools (search_team_knowledge, ask_cody) are clearly distinct operations, so no explicit differentiation is needed for an agent to route correctly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description makes clear the tool is used to enumerate integrations, with filtering framed as optional ('optionally filtered by category or name'), which sets expectations about default behavior. It stops short of any explicit when-not-to-use condition, but no sibling competes for this job.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.